Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case under Section. 397 R/W. Sec.401 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment in Crl M.P.No. 8286/06 in C.C.No.333 of 2002, dated 09-02-2007 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku) Common Order: Since all these Criminal revision Cases arise out of the common order dated 09.02.2007 and since all the petitioners are involved in the same crime, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2) All the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.333 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West godavari District, are charged for the offences punishable under Condition 4 (ii) of Drug Licence in Form 21-B and Condition (ii) of Drugs Licence in Form 20-B read with 18 (a) (vi) and Section 18 (c) Punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). 3) The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioners, being wholesalers, supplied the drugs to a retailer even after expiry of his drug licence, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences as mentioned above. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were supplying the drugs to the retailers regularly and when they first supplied the drugs to the retailers regularly and when they first supplied the drugs to the retailer, they verified his licence and started supplying continuously believing that he continues to hold the licence. But, on verification by the Drug Inspector, it came to light that the licence of the retailer expired two years prior to the date of inspection. Therefore, he filed a complaint against the petitioners to prosecute them. He further submitted that the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the retailer continues to hold the licence and unless there is mens rea to attract the penal provisions, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. He further contended that under Form 20-B Condition 3 (ii), no sale of any drug shall be made to a person not holding the requisite licence to sell. 5) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as the retailer was not having any licence by the date of supplying of the drugs, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted. He further contended that under Form 20-B Condition 3 (ii), no sale of any drug shall be made to a person not holding the requisite licence to sell. 5) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as the retailer was not having any licence by the date of supplying of the drugs, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the retailer was not having any licence, but it was only expired for want of renewal. Therefore, it cannot be considered s the retailer not holding any licence. He further submitted that mens rea is an essential ingredient of criminal offence. As there was no mens rea to the petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court tin National v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1966 SC 43 ). Wherein it is held as under: “Mens rea is an essential ingredient o a criminal offence. A statute may exclude the element of mens rea; it is, however, a sound rule of construction, which is adopted in England and also accepted in India, to construe a provision, which creates an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it except where the statute expressly or by necessary implications excludes mens rea. Of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence the mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is not by itself decisive. Only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated that mens rea may, by necessary implication, be excluded from a statute. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.” 7) There is no mention in the complaint whether the Drugs Inspector brought to the notice of the wholesalers that a particular retailer was not having any drug lience or that the wholesalers knowing fully well that the retailer does not have any drug licence, intentionally supplied the drug to a non-licence holder. As the complaint is silent about the mens rea, it will be treated that the petitioners, being wholesalers, have supplied the drugs with a bona fide impression that the retailer continues to hold the licence. Unless there is knowledge to the petitioners that the retailer was not renewed to continue the business, the petitioners do not have the element of guilty mind to commit the offence. Only in the event of absolute plea that the petitioners supplied the drugs to the retailer knowing fully well that he does not continue to hold the licence, then only it can be said that he petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be continued against the petitioners for the alleged offences. 8) In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.NO.333 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District, are quashed.